How often do I read that phrase in reviews of books?

‘I hated that character.’

‘I didn’t like that character.’

‘ The character was horrible.’

Some reviewers never do it and are much better reviewers for it. Some do it and qualify their comments – they get that not all characters are loveable. That’s a brilliant review.

And one or two people who read books just want to just hate, as if their ‘hate’ is fine and acceptable in the world of characters in literature.

I see ‘hate’ all the time on Facebook posts. I used to glance at them. I scroll on these days and avoid that noise.

I pause here for reflection. Hate is a bit of an ugly word. I mean, why would we hate someone? Because they are evil? Because they do awful things? Even in books, in fiction, is it OK ot hate?

Let’s think about that.

A reader might say, ‘I hate Voldemort.’ Well, I suppose we’re not meant to like him. Think about what his name means. ‘Theft of death,’ derived from French roots, vol de mort. Or flight of death – the same words. It’s an anagram of his birth name. The letters in “Tom Marvolo Riddle” spell out the phrase ‘I am Lord Voldemort.’ And yes, He-Who-Must–Not-Be-Named is a baddie whose main function is to try to kill Harry Potter, and he’s cruel and has always been a bully, so we’re not likely to empathise with him too much. But hate? Didn’t he have a loveless conception? I know that doesn’t excuse him, but hate? Let’s just say instead, ‘Voldemort is an antagonist, and I’m on Harry’s side.’

Should we really hate a character if there are extenuating circumstances? Let’s consider Heathcliff, my old favourite antihero. I can’t seem to hate him, because of the way he’s treated (and because of his origins) at the beginning of Wuthering Heights. He does terrible things. I don’t approve of his actions, but I don’t hate him.

People say they hate Holden Caulfield, the narrator of The Catcher in the Rye, because he’s whiny, self-absorbed, and pampered. It’s a bit strong to hate a victim because they’re irritating. He’s young and flawed, and he suffers. No, I won’t buy in to bullying behaviour. The crowd against the weak victim.

Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby epitomises arrogance, racism, and misogyny. He’s a bully. I definitely wouldn’t invite him and Daisy to dinner. And no, I don’t like the man. He’s a victim of 1920s entitlement. He’s nasty and unhappy. I’ll leave him where he is. But I won’t hate him.

Even if there are no extenuating circumstances, I realise that the function of a despicable character in a novel is to make it interesting for the reader, to provide contrast and tension, to create threat. They are meant to be part of the story. I won’t hate them for it.

Then it happened to me the other day. A reviewer wrote, ‘I hated Russell,’ about my book A French Fling for the Golden Girls.

The reviewer didn’t go on to say why they hated him, which was the important bit that was missing. Readers of the review need to know the rationale behind the remark. It’s probably because Russell’s arrogant and a cheat. In the first few chapters, he exhibits controlling behaviour towards his partner Maxine, then he seduces Max’s best friend Jo. Throughout the book, Jo comes to regret her actions, but Russell shows no remorse for his selfishness. He just wants Max back, and to continue to have his own way on his own terms. Not great behaviour.

But you’re not meant to like him. Not all characters in books are likeable. They can’t all be suitable contenders for our best friends or our admiration.

Russell is a no-good boy. He’s not nice at all. That’s the point of him in that small part of Max’s story.

Personally, I don’t hate him. He’s there to demonstrate Max’s strength and resolve, her determination, her personal growth.

Sadly, the reviewer didn’t say that. Just an isolated ‘I hated Russell.’

Hate tells us more about the person who says it.

There’s a quote I like by Roy T Bennett that goes, ‘More smiling, less worrying. More compassion, less judgment. More blessed, less stressed. More love, less hate.’

That works for me. Russell’s not that important to warrant hatred.

I love reviewers. They do such an awesome job for writers. I had a review of French Fling recently that made me so happy. Not just because it was a good review, which it was, but because the reviewer really ‘got’ the book. It was a perceptive review, one that actually understood the characters and delved beneath the surface. And acknowledged that there was a subliminal message.

Here’s some of it.

When you read this novel, you will be in very skilled hands! Judy is a highly accomplished writer who is exploring the emotions and trials of approaching age, broken relationships and how we can all learn from difficult losses and tragic situations. What is so admirable about her work is that she deals with serious matters with great integrity, compassion and depth but does so in a deceptively light way in keeping with this genre. This makes her work highly accessible. It’s time older women made centre stage! Though I use the word ’light’ – beneath the surface is a knowledge of pain, human relationships but there is hope and possibility of change for Judy’s characters. Highly recommended.

I love the intelligence in this review, and the ability to analyse beneath the superficial.

And there’s no hate involved, none at all. Now that’s a review!

Of course we shouldn’t ‘love’ every character, or even like them. It’s OK to dislike them, or be less than impressed with their actions. But let’s not forget that’s why they are there in the book. To keep the conflict and the jeopardy going. To make us reflect as readers. To offer balance.

Where there is yin there is yang.

So let’s end with some love, and some respect. A huge thank you to all those people who read and review my books, all writers’ books. You are truly respected and appreciated.

Thank you. xx